Guns - Debate and Education

I see. Thank you for your contribution and clarification chosen. I'm sketchy on the required military service but its a worthwhile point to discuss. Yhavent- I see the thought of taking a life no matter how justified is something you dont want to do. When I get home allow me to address that further just to clarify the whole "plan to shoot someone bit"

I agree the way we use our military nowadays isn't all that honorable or true to our principles. The Military Industrial Complex (which people often lump our military themselves with) is something vile and despicable to trade blood for money. I see the validity of required military service. I definitely see the logic and it should definitely mix up our stances and war-monger nature. I mean we could have all sorts of educational and competency regulations without military service (classroom courses and shooting range tests). I do however like the idea of many houses having standard issue M4A1's (I think that is the standard rifle of issue currently) which would deter crime if burglars and such knew about every house there's an assault rifle behind it.

Next on my gun education to do list is the history of one of the biggest influences in the modern Gun debate -the National Rifle Association or NRA (admittedly spurned on by my activity in another thread more on that in another post). For reference: https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/ Also: http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/ Before I go on about the NRA I should mention its foundation because - well doesn't that just make sense to start with the foundation on a historical post? The following is an excerpt from a TIME magazine article linked above: "When the NRA was founded by two Union Civil War veterans and a former New York Times reporter in 1871, its purpose was to help improve the marksmanship of urban northerners whose inferiority to the superior marksmanship of their rural southern counterparts was believed to have prolonged the war. During this time, the Second Amendment was not the association’s central platform. Displayed at the NRA’s national headquarters was its motto, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” The association was granted a charter and received $25,000 from New York State to purchase a firing range. It also maintained a longstanding relationship with the U.S. military, receiving surplus guns and sponsorships for shooting contest." In other words post Civil War some Union/Northerners went "damn those southerners might be racist backwards motherfuckers but they can sure shoot - lets learn to do that" and voila the NRA was born. The NRA does plenty more for America (and the world?) than advocate in the modern day for Second Amendment rights. They are instrumental and central and have been since its inception in 1871 for safety and education. Anybody who thinks the NRA wants unfettered access and isn't concerned about safety is DEAD WRONG. You go into any gun store or any NRA meeting and gun safety isn't an optional culture or something they take lightly AT ALL. There are three main gun safety rules that the NRA promotes and these are golden rules that are taken lightly by nobody in the pro-gun crowd ... the three golden gun safety rules are : Gun Safety Rule #1: ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. Gun Safety Rule #2: ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Gun Safety Rule #3: ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. The NRA has always focused on education and training of proper gun use and are instrumental in training our police and other armed forces. Our police (while criticism on them is justified in some cases) are better because of the NRA. However, promoting the Second Amendment hasn't always been very high up on the NRA's to do list. Quite a few prominent pieces of gun control legislation have been in part or fully supported by the NRA. The National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 and even the Mulford act in 1967 too (which also makes gun control racist - more on this later). For most of its existence the NRA focused pretty much exclusively on marksmanship, people who shot for sport, and hunters. The NRA didn't become anywhere near the prominent gun lobby it is today until the mid 70's when the reaction the Gun Control Act of 1968 reverberated through NRA membership essentially splitting them into factions (pro and anti gun control). We can all see which side won when NRA president Harlon Carter took the NRA into the political sphere for gun rights and the NRA sure as hell hasn't looked back since. Thus many leftist articles will point out how the NRA was pro gun control when it was black people (Black Panthers) taking up arms but now that gun control is a primarily white people battle the NRA is now pro gun rights. The shift between gun control and gun rights for the NRA did happen in the 70's (shortly after two restrictive legislation bills were passed) ... which at the very least is a coincidence (I'm open to the shift being coincidental or more racially biased as gun control went from being a black person issue to a white person issue primarily) (More on the Mulford Act implications in another post) Despite its heavy political action of the past 30ish years or so the NRA has stayed true to its founding principles. It has not abandoned them one fucking bit despite its political influences and interests.

It is very difficult to avoid a racial crossover when talking about the history of gun control vs gun rights. I mentioned in my last post the Mulford act of 1967. This act I believe in my (admittedly light) research on the topic is the conception and/or birth of the modern gun control / rights debate. I'm going to focus here more on the guns aspect than the racial aspect the best I can (I do have a racial take in a racism thread) “the gun is the only thing that will free us — gain us our liberation.” .... without know you'd think this is an NRA quote or from a white person who hates the government... however this is a Black Panther philosophy taught to recruits in the 60's The legally (at the time) armed Panthers patrolled Oakland neighborhoods policing the police essentially and acted as a check against police brutality and unjustified methods police would use at times. They (reportedly) would only use force when met with force. As their movement gained steam through the 60's in California - Representative Don Mulford proposed legislation to restrict gun rights because of racial tensions and fear at the time. In protest of this legislation the Black Panthers marched to the California State Capitol (legally) armed. They marched into the facility and disturbed politicians mid-session to stand up for their grievances and rights (both racial and gun wise since to them ... the guns helped secure their fight for the racial rights). The Panthers were eventually asked to leave by police and did so peacefully. (Note: not that I'm sure it matters much but I haven't been able to find what kind of rifles the Panthers were armed with, but they also had shotguns and other handguns as well) As the governor of California at the time it was Ronald Reagan that signed this legislation into law - for the record as well. To conclude (restate): The modern day arguments of gun rights advocates could be reasonably stated to be (original) Black Panthers' arguments and stances. There are some things emphasized differently between the Panthers of the 60's and the primarily white people of the 2000's to the present in their primary arguments but there definitely is a crossover. Things have obviously changed (dramatically) since then in our society and political thinking but the events of the late 60's - early to mid 70's really changed the dynamic of gun rights vs control.

Today's topic that I may have already covered but I'll do so again because well this thread is my house anyway ... is..... the anti-gun leftist argument "nobody is coming for your guns" and saying that those who fear this are basing it off of paranoia alone.... ohhhh realllllyy??? When you have a president (Obama) and a presidential candidate (H. Clinton) praising Australia gun laws ... which was a mandatory buy back program (essentially mandated confiscation) ... one could REASONABLY get the idea some politicians are coming for our guns When you invent a term (assault weapons - which has NO REAL MEANING) to ban guns for whatever usually baseless paranoid illogical reason .... one could REASONABLY get the idea that more guns will be banned later When every action taken by leftists with respect to guns just shouts "we don't want you to have guns you must give them up" .... one could REASONABLY get the idea that you want our guns and to make us defenseless I could go on (and I might edit this post to reflect more evidence and such) but the fact is that the fear that the government guided by misguided liberals (liberals are retarded as fuck when it comes to the topic of guns - FACT) wants to confiscate our guns .... IS REAL AND BASED OFF OF SOMETHING REAL AND NOT JUST PULLED OUT OF THIN AIR

I'm personally not for the ownership of guns. I don't own any guns myself, but I'm also aware other people don't feel the same way, and some people do live in significantly more dangerous areas than myself. Also, I come from a community where people hunt, and I believe everyone should have the right to pursue that if they want. Overall, I am for gun control, though I'm far more upset with how lax screening and background checking is than I am with the idea of people owning certain types of guns. I've always agreed with the idea of people owning bolt-action hunting rifles, since they're generally non-concealable and slow firing. I don't really like the idea of people running around with any full automatic or semi-automatic guns though.

@Hecatia: Dude, relax. If you've done everything the right way, I'm not even for someone taking your guns away. I stated my own hangups with guns, but I'm not on the front-lines of gun control.